Media Watch

"No decisions had been taken, but he (the British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the time line beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections.

"The foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

"The attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult." Blair stated "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors If the political context were right, people would support regime change."

The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a British foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002.

On May 1, 2005, the Sunday Times of London printed a copy of this secret memo to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and others. It is a summary of the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair and it states unequivocally Americas intent to invade Iraq under whatever auspices it damned well please, and to the rest of the world in the words of G.W., youre either with us or against us.

89 Congressional Democrats queried the Bush administration with a letter of request following the Times revelation, to explain the indiscreet discrepancies. The letter, introduced by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..." Sir Menzies Campbell, Britains Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the leaked memo proved P.M. Blair had agreed to an illegal regime change with the Bush administration. It set out to create the justification for going to war. It was to be war by any means.

A rogue (unelected) American administration aided and abetted by an equally corrupt and dissembling British Prime Minister usurped all of the international laws and organizations designed to prevent just such abuses of power and against overwhelming worldwide public disapproval invaded and decimated a non-threatening, internationally recognized sovereign nation, while from Americas imminent imperilment by Iraqs WMDs to its artificially alleged alQuida connections, the truth behind their deceits and deceptions have all been unraveled and revealed even as we continue to wage this unjust and illegal war, yet in the mass mainstream American media hardly a word is whispered about it.

Instead of leading the charge for Bush and Blair being tried in the World Court for crimes against humanity, mass media massaged both these boobs back into the offices they have shamed. Instead of exposing heinous crimes against the international community by two of the worlds leading industrialized nations illegal, immoral and unjust use of military might, mass media focuses the publics attention on the petty fiscal corruption of a handful of UN officials and a preposterous push for denominational sainthood for a passing Pope as if either were something earth-shatteringly new or newsworthy.

According to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Knight Ridder News Wire Service, The New York Times (5/2/05), and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05), Cox News Service (5/8/05) and Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05) were the only mainstream (and minimalist at that) coverage of the secret meetings memo. The Washington Posts Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that readers were complaining about its lack of coverage, but the paper continued to ignore it anyway. CNN passed on it as well, and, as usual in the 21st Century communications cornucopia, you have to navigate the blogosphere or weave your way around the web to find out the truth.

Salon Magazines Joe Conason queried: Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?
The fact that youre here reading this shows you already know the answer.

alexander graham
graham.myexpose.com This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know.

Thus begins the smoking gun memo of Britains PM Tony Blairs revelations that Americas President George W. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy long before either England or Americas affected citizenry were ever informed of this unsavory and internationally illegal abuse of power, the likes of which have not been seen since Lyndon Johnsons Gulf of Tonkin little Whitehouse lies mired us ignominiously in Viet Nam.